While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush
through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the
Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from
Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate
procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage
unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.

The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look
like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage
war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of
ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use
the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama
has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power
to wage war.

President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush,
in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011
the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the
assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional
approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya
invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the
subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing
of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.

It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle
East. Last week the media reported that the US military had taken over an air
base in eastern Syria, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US
would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul in Iraq and to attack
ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden
said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is
prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely
place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was
requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US
military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.

The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of
Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at
the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has
fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to
compromise? Isn’t al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?

The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the
Executive branch’s power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king
who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness. That is why they created a people’s branch, the Congress, to prevent
the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war.
Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.

Let’s be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this
open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.

Ron Paul is a former congressman from Texas, an antiwar Republican. The above
article, of January 25, 2016, appeared at Antiwar.com, which reprinted it from
RonPaulLibertyReport.com.

When it comes to Obama’swars, Mitch’s stand seemsto be, ‘More power to him’

Obama gets his wish and more in Senate Joint Resolution 29, introduced by
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate’sRepublican leader, from Kentucky. It is
cosponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, a GOP presidential candidate from Florida,
and Republican Senators Coats (IN), Ernst (IA), Graham (SC), and Hatch (UT)

Its language bears a striking similarity to the resolution that Bush Jr. submitted
and Congress rubber-stamped in 2002 to authorize his impending attack on Iraq.

Despite congressional Republicans’s perennial refrain that the Democratic
President Obama has exceeded his constitutional power, McConnell aims atthrustingnearly unlimited war power upon the president.

In doing so, McConnell appears to be tossing out all the normal procedural
safeguards: referral to committee, public hearing, discussion, debate. He wants
war and is strong-arming it through—democracy be damned. The resolution was
“read” the second time on January 21 and placed on the Senate calendar.

If passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, it could be seen by
subsequent presidents as a green light for perpetual, world-wide war, employing
ground troops and any methods of mass killing in our arsenal – including carpet
bombing and even nuclear weapons. As soon as the first GIs are captured and
executed, expect cries to “take off the gloves.”

“Terrorism” in general, ISIS (or ISIL) in particular, is becoming a bogie to excuse
extended conflict, the crushing of constitutional liberties, and the giveaway of tax
billions to the war industry. At one time “Communism” served that function.

The bill does not pin down the location of the war or its objective. How then do
we know where it is to be waged and when it ends? Maybe it will be waged
globally and last for our lifetimes—and that could be what the chicken-hawks
want.

Which are the bad guys?

In 2001, the 9/11 assault by a handful of suicidal airplane hijackers so panicked
the country that on 9/14 Congress surrendered its exclusive war power under the
Constitution. It let George W. Bush fight anyone that he determined had anything
to do with the crime.

Bush chose to attack Afghanistan, although the war-authorization act said nothing
about Afghanistan and no Afghans had been among the hijackers. (He ignored the
most culpable regime, Saudi Arabia.) The purpose supposedly was to prevent
future terrorist incidents. Who remembers the scope or purpose of that war act ?

The following year, falling for Bush Jr.’s lies about weapons of mass destruction,
Congress again gave up its constitutional power to decide war and peace. It let
Bush decide whether it was necessary and appropriate to attack Iraq, which in
reality he had already decided. He launched his blitzkrieg in March 2003 (against
the same nation that Reagan had armed in support of its aggression against Iran
and that Bush Sr. had attacked in 1991).

For over fourteen years, U.S. bombs, bullets, and missiles have been terrorizing,
killing, and maiming the people of Afghanistan. About 2,400 U.S. servicemen
have given their lives there for no visible purpose, some 4,500 in Iraq. For thirteen
years, U.S. intervention has been destroying Iraq and its people. Far from
protecting us, the destruction in both countries just makes us more enemies. No
end appears in sight. (For comparison: the Vietnam-Indochina war lasted nine
years and sacrificed some 58,000 GIs.)

Forget Obama’s promise to leave Afghanistan in 2014 and his boast of
withdrawing from Iraq. The Afghan intervention continues, and though he once
condemned the “dumb war” in Iraq, he has started another there. Bush Jr. ventured into Pakistan also, and Obama expanded the operations there.

Another question about fighting ISIS/ISIL: How are we to tell the bad guys from
the civilians?

Studies show that civilians suffer most casualties in such wars. Yet the military
does not count them. They are just “collateral damage.” Take a 2015 Brown
University study estimating that about 210,000 civilians had died violent deaths as
a consequence of the wars started by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Moreover, it found many more children, women, and men had died from hunger
and illness arising from the wars than were killed by bombs or bullets.

Of course, we’re the good guys.

Violations of international law

The aggressive U.S. military operations in those three countries, as well as Syria,
Libya, and Yemen, disregard international law. None of the six countries has ever
attacked the U.S., whose government has been violating the following pacts. As
U.S. treaties, they are all part of “the supreme law of the land” (Constitution,
Article VI).

The Hague Conventions (1899, 1907). Its rules of war prohibit attacking
undefended buildings or communities, or bombarding without warning, or
using poisoned weapons, or penalizing a population for someone’s acts, or
killing without allowing a foe to surrender.

The Pact of Paris (Kellogg-Briand Treaty, 1928). The U.S. and other nations
condemned war for the solution of international controversies, renounced it
as an instrument of national policy, and pledged to settle all disputes or
conflicts only by peaceful means. This law was used to try German and
Japanese big shots for committing the crime of aggression in World War II.

The Charter of the United Nations (San Francisco, 1945). The U.S. and
other signatories pledged to settle international disputes by peaceful means
(seven were enumerated) and refrain from the threat or use of force against
any county’s territorial integrity or political independence.

The North Atlantic Treaty (1949), wherein signatories renewed their vows
to settle disputes peacefully and to refrain from the threat or use of force
inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.

Another important rule is the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 1949, which bans attacks on civilians or indiscriminate attacks that hit civilians.
It is now generally regarded as a part of customary international law. Yet the
Senate has still not ratified the protocol. How about it, Senator McConnell?

The resolution: main text

The title and effective sections of Senate Joint Resolution 29 follow below. We
omit all the preliminary “Whereas” clauses, 23 of them, totaling over 800 words.

Note that the resolution assumes (without proof) that U.S.national security is
threatened by the Islamic State and “its associated forces, organizations, and
persons, and any successor organizations.” That could take in the whole world,
and the war could go on indefinitely. The terms are not defined.

It allows the president to “defend” the national security against all those supposed
foes by using whatever force he considers “necessary and appropriate”—and there
is no military or time limitation. The Obama proposal had a three-year cut-off.

The phrase “necessary and appropriate” appeared in the Bush Jr. resolution for
attacking Iraq and in the Obama proposal. These 17 words: “in order to defend the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by” have been taken word for
word from the Bush resolution. In 2002 the “continuing threat” was posed by
“Iraq.” Now it is posed by “the Islamic State of Iraq” etc.

Last time, the “continuing threat” from Iraq proved to be a total lie by our
government. Bush’s supposed defense of our national security turned out to be
naked aggression, at a vast cost in lives and treasure. Will we be twice fooled?

The misspelling of supersedes and the loose use of punctuation are the least
problems with this perilous legislation.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its Associated
Forces'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General- The President is authorized to use all necessary and
appropriate force in order to defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, its associated forces, organizations, and persons, and any successor
organizations.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section
8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1457(a)(1)),
Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War
Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution
(50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

SEC. 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) Reports- Not less frequently than once every 60 days, the President shall
submit a report to Congress on matters relevant to this joint resolution,
including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted under
section 2.

(b) Single Consolidated Report- To the extent that the submission of any
report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other
report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be
submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War
Powers Resolution, all such reports may be submitted as a single
consolidated report to Congress.